If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article m, Savageduck
wrote: Andreas Skitsnack: Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there is an innate talent involved. Sandman: Nope. Whisky-dave: Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him. Sandman: Thousand and thousands of hours of training. Yup, I've heard of him. John McWilliams: I believe that some have innate talents that other do not have. I also believe that with the proper high level of interest and intense practicing, high levels of accomplishment are possible. PeterN: One may learn the craft with intense training, but I don't see that creativity can be taught. Sometimes the creativity is surpressed because of an an individual's psychological quirks. That hidden talent may be brought out through proper encouragement. Such encouragement should not be confused with teaching creativity. Since everybody has used Picasso as an example, it might be worth noting that Picasso?s father was a painter who was also a professor of fine art and an art museum curator. It was his father who provided a formal artistic training for the young boy and who got his son admitted to the Barcelona school of Fine Arts. Picasso went on to to the Royal Academy of San Fernando in Madrid, but dropped out quite soon. He then spent much of his time hanging out in places such as the Prado, and much of the art he was exposed to there influenced his work. So it seems Picasso?s natural born talent was the ability to emulate his father at an early age. Of course, and Mozarts father was a composer already. Your environment is one of the biggest influences of your life. -- Sandman |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
Andreas Skitsnack: Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis, Bill W: Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*? Aren't we all tired of this subject by now? Andreas Skitsnack: Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the validity of the hypothesis. Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation", Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us about having lunch with an Indo-European, and SavageDuck will submit 17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at Laguna Seca. Sandman: And Andreas won't understand anything of it, claiming that none of the words used are in accordance to his book of "Fully Accepted Words". The difference between us is that I will openly admit it when I don't understand something just as I did in a reply to one of Floyd's recent posts. That may be true - what you WON'T openly admit is when you are wrong. Even when you are proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt you would never ever admit to being wrong. You can spend weeks snipping away substantiations from posts that proves you wrong just so you can keep pretending you're correct. Need an example?? You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that you don't understand something just as you did when saying "look it up" when caught out not understanding what a linguist is. Well, did you look it up? linguist noun 1 a person skilled in foreign languages. 2 a person who studies linguistics. -- Sandman |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
Sandman: This is not part of the same quote. Wikiquotes doesn't even list it. Having said that, it resonates with other verified quotes from Einstein that talked a lot about intuition and how it has been a key part for his work. Einstein was no linguist, however. Andreas Skitsnack: What does that have to do with it? Sandman: Look it up. Typical. Avoiding admission of making a completely nonsensical statement using a word that doesn't apply, and then snipping the part of the post that shows why it doesn't reply. In what way do you think it doesn't apply? Are you claiming that Einstein was a linguist? That would make sense. Also find it hilarious to see Andreas Skitsnack whine about snipping! -- Sandman |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote: Sandman: Intuition is when you're doing some based on what you feel is true, without using reasoning. Andreas Skitsnack: Yes, and that's why intuition is linked to what we call natural talent. An artist may draw a scene a particular way because he/she intuitively feels that that is the way the scene should be drawn and not because the artist has been trained to do it this way, and not because the artist has practiced drawing the scene. Sandman: If the artist is drawing a scene in a particular way, he or she is doing so by choice, not by intuition. Are you really this thick? When you choose to do something that is not predicated on some prior input, that is choosing based on intuition. We'll add the word "intuition" to the already long list of words that have you completely stumped. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t Sandman: Nope. When I've been to my children's school to watch the drawings, I can easily discern which kids have taken an interest into drawing. Your "example" is only valid if this was the first time these kids ever held a pen. What you call "taken an interest into [sic] drawing" is simply the visible result of a natural ability. Incorrect. When you're interested in something, you naturally tend to perform or pursue that interest, which enhances your skill. For young people, this usually happens at an accelerated rate due to eagerness and the access to a lot more free time. Andreas Skitsnack: It's not just children. Give an adult his/her first camera and send them out to take photographs. Some will come back with very ordinary photographs and some will come back with surprisingly good photographs from a subject matter and compositional standpoint. Sandman: Which means that the ones that have "better" composed photographs have an interest in composition. Perhaps they have been doing some interior decoration at home, perhaps they're painters already and already have learned the basic rules of composition. Again, it's the visible result of a natural ability. No. "Taken an interest in" is an almost meaningless term in this context. Of course not. A person can have taken an interest in a subject or process without having any ability or talent in regard to that subject or process. Without having any ability, yes. Talent is a myth. There are many people who have taken an interest in photography who are unable to produce interesting photographs. According to you, perhaps. Good photographic ability needn't produce a result that you find interesting. Skill != Art. Not that this is bad thing, though. If the person enjoys the hobby, or produces images that record important things to that person, then there's no requirement that the photographs be particularly well done. What you consider "well done" isn't a parameter in this discussion, however. Actually, there are other hobbies that come to mind more than photography. There are people who have "taken an interest in" pottery, painting, knitting, etc, and created nothing but hideous results of their interest. Again, according to a retired guy in Florida. At least in photography you usually tell if it was supposed to be a tree in the picture. Not so with some who develop an interest in painting. Skill is the subject, not any supposed judgement of the end result. You may dislike the painting, and other may like it. It may still be the result of a highly skilled painter that has spent thousands of hours practicing painting to become skilled at it. Whether or not the result is "art" in your eyes is of no concern to the subject or his skill. Andreas Skitsnack: Training and practice may improve everyone's ability in this to some degree, but some will always be ahead of the others because of an intuitive ability to see the subject and how to best capture that subject. Sandman: No. Such a ridiculous position. Pity. I grow tired of repeating myself. Refer to my earlier responses regarding the same claims if you want a more elaborate answer. -- Sandman |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , nospam wrote:
In article , Sandman: When it comes to opera singers, there *is* a "born with it" factor to it, since your physical body plays a part in how well you can perform what you do. It's not "talent", but your voice capacity is important, like how "born with it" length is important to a basketball player. Also, I'm not really all that interested in opera singers, so it's hard to come up with a list of comparable people for me. nospam: in other words, it's not just practice, but being born with it. Sandman: But not "talent". Being tall doesn't mean you have "talent" for basket ball. It means you have an (unfair) physical advantage. correct. talent and practice are separate things, and entirely separate of having a physical advantage. Also, talent doesn't exist, so with an unfair physical advantage and lots of practice, you can become a great basketball player. With a physical advantage and no practice, you're a tall guy in the middle of the ball court and that's it. No "talent" required. -- Sandman |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , RJH wrote:
Rich A: There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted Sandman: Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do". I think the flaw in your argument is that some people will only be willing to practice if they have the ability, and in some cases, that ability may be innate. Of course not. You're "willing" to practice something if you have an interest. If you find yourself unwilling to practice to become good, that just means you're not all that interested in becoming good. For a photography group, this should be easy to relate to. How a lot of people really want to take awesome photos without learning exactly how. So they use apps with filters in their phones, or buy compact cameras that have retro filters built in etc etc. It's a short cut for those that want to create something that looks sort of special, but require little skill. With an interest in photography, you learn about the camera, about lighting, about composition. You spend a lot of time practicing, looking at your photos that didn't turn up as good as you had hoped, and adjust accordingly. It takes time and isn't something you're "born" with. For example, athletes. But more on-topic, good and colour-accurate eyesight, say. So, 'willing' is rather a loaded term - 'able' may be better? I've already been over this a few times. Some things do require physical abilities that make it easier, or lack of handicap's that make it harder. But that's a flawed argument, because being tall doesn't mean you have an in-born talet to become a basket ball player, and having long fingers doesn't mean you have an in-born talent for playing the piano. Sandman: The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't practiced enough. I'd probably agree that nobody is 'born a da Vinci', but you're more likely to become one given a set of formative circumstances. 'More likely' are long odds :-) "Formative circumstances" - Absolutely! Born with it - not a chance. Talent - nope. For myself, I'm not too good at photography because I haven't practised enough - no excuses here! Indeed. -- Sandman |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , RJH wrote:
Rich A: I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of training. Sandman: Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads you to invest 10,000 hours into that. newshound: I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying to play the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still rubbish. Sandman: Just to repeat: 10,000 hours is playing the guitar 8 hours every single work day for a solid five years. Also, as I've also said - it's a combination of time *and* interest. Anyone can do something for 10k hours that they dislike and still be bad at it. But if those 10k hours are the result of an interest on your part, you will be good at it. Even if you're tone deaf, arthritic and can't afford new strings? :-) No one is tone deaf unless you have a hearing handicap. Someone that is "tone deaf" is someone that has taken no interest in music and can't be bothered. Handicaps and economy is important. But if you have a real interest, it's rarely a huge problem. As you're probably aware, history is filled with great artists that hardly could afford to put food on the table. Yet they persisted and refused to give up their craft because they lived for it, it was their single largest interest. -- Sandman |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , Whisky-dave
wrote: Rich A: I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of training. Sandman: Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads you to invest 10,000 hours into that. newshound: I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying to play the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still rubbish. Sandman: Just to repeat: 10,000 hours is playing the guitar 8 hours every single work day for a solid five years. Also, as I've also said - it's a combination of time *and* interest. Anyone can do something for 10k hours that they dislike and still be bad at it. But if those 10k hours are the result of an interest on your part, you will be good at it. RJH: Even if you're tone deaf, arthritic and can't afford new strings? :-) I'd like to know what lens and camera a photographer with parkinsons disease would need and would he be worried by f stop defraction limiting. Full circle: http://imgur.com/gallery/Ath29UY -- Sandman |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
| That seems to be the kernel of this debate. You don't actually
| acknowledge art and don't seem to have any concept of it. | | Incorrect on both accounts. | | Art is in the eye of the beholder. You're contradicting yourself here. I'm not talking about whether I think someone's photos are art. I'm talking about whether you regard the practice of photography as art. It appears that you've never really thought about that and don't have any defined sense of what it means to practice an art form. For you it's merely a "skill". | But the subject was skill, the ability to use a given craft on a superior or | professional level. | No. The subject was photographic ability. It's you who have narrowly redefined that as mere technical expertise. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?
In article , Mayayana wrote:
| That seems to be the kernel of this debate. You don't actually | acknowledge art and don't seem to have any concept of it. | | Incorrect on both accounts. | | Art is in the eye of the beholder. You're contradicting yourself here. I'm not talking about whether I think someone's photos are art. I'm talking about whether you regard the practice of photography as art. Then you were being unclear. The answer is "no", I don't think the practice of photography is art. I think some photos have varying degrees of artistic value, but not all, hence "photography" is not art, just like "painting" is not art. Some paintings are, but not all. It appears that you've never really thought about that and don't have any defined sense of what it means to practice an art form. How things "seem" to you is of no concern to me. For you it's merely a "skill". Of course not. Skill != Art, and Art != Skill. Having the skills to paint well doesn't make you an artist, making something that someone considers "art" doesn't mean you have painting skills. There isn't a 1:1 relationship between "Skill" and "Art". Chances are that with greater skill your chances to create something that more people consider art is greatly enhanced, but not something to be taken for granted. | But the subject was skill, the ability to use a given craft on a superior or | professional level. | No. The subject was photographic ability. It's you who have narrowly redefined that as mere technical expertise. ability noun 1 possession of the means or skill to do something 2 skill, or proficiency in a particular area -- Sandman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A star is born! | Douglas[_5_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | November 21st 07 10:11 PM |
40D GETS TAUGHT A LESSON ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | October 27th 07 10:36 PM |
40D GETS TAUGHT A LESSON ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 7 | October 24th 07 03:21 PM |
A new photographer is born | Mary | Digital Photography | 0 | January 28th 06 08:25 PM |
flatbed scanners with neg film scanning ability ? | Beowulf | Digital Photography | 12 | September 1st 04 11:10 PM |